Parvesh Kumari vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 10654 P&H

CRM-M-28043-2022                                                 -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

(230)

                                  CRM-M-28043-2022
                                  Date of decision: - 07.09.2022

Parvesh Kumari
                                                                       ....Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Haryana
                                                                   .....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL



Present:-     Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

                   ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2021, under

Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Ram Nagar,

District Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 28.01.2022 and the investigation is

complete and the challan has been presented and there are total 17

prosecution witnesses, out of whom none have been examined and thus,

the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the case is triable

by the Magistrate and as per the FIR, the allegations with respect to

1 of 4

inducement and fraudulently taking money from the complainant, have

not been levelled against the present petitioner and the only allegation

levelled against the petitioner in the FIR is to the effect that after the other

co-accused had taken money, the complainant had taken his sons to

Srinagar and had met co-accused, namely, Surinder Kumar, who had then

taken them to a hotel where they met with two of his accomplices, one of

whom was the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner

was not made an accused in the FIR and has been only subsequently

implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of Surinder Kumar. It

is stated that at any rate, the best case of the prosecution against the

present petitioner is that he was to get 20% commission, after the money

had been paid to the co-accused by the victim and even the said amount

has not been paid to the petitioner.

Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner was

a part of the whole conspiracy of duping people by alluring them on the

pretext of providing them jobs in the Army. It is further submitted that the

petitioner is involved in three other cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382

to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be

seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the

petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is

involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is

2 of 4

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

gone through the paper-book.

The petitioner has been in custody since 28.01.2022 and the

investigation is complete and the challan has been presented and there are

total 17 prosecution witnesses, out of whom none have been examined

and thus, the trial is likely to take time. The petitioner was not made an

accused in the FIR and although, in the FIR, it had been stated that co-

accused Surinder Kumar, after taking the money from the complainant,

had met the complainant and his sons in Srinagar and had then taken them

to a hotel where they met his accomplices, one of whom was the present

petitioner, but no specific allegation has been levelled against the present

petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be involved on the basis of the

disclosure statement of the co-accused. The present case is triable by the

Magistrate.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the

present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on

bail on her furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the

concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to her not being

required in any other case.

3 of 4

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the

petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses,

then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation

of bail granted to the petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression

of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed

independently of the observations made in the present case which are only

for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

                                                            ( VIKAS BAHL )
September 07, 2022                                              JUDGE
naresh.k

                    Whether reasoned/speaking?        Yes
                    Whether reportable?               Yes




                                     4 of 4